Metro Matters; For the Mayor, An Issue Close To His Wallet

By JOYCE PURNICK

Published: December 8, 2003

THIS does not happen that often. The normally mild-mannered mayor is acting furious. Michael R. Bloomberg spent the better part of a week accusing the chairman of the city's Campaign Finance Board -- his own appointee -- of secrecy, political scheming and favoritism.

He used phrases like ''backroom deal'' to describe the way the board went about proposing changes in the city's campaign finance law, which would give participants larger financial bonuses if they run against a big spender like Mr. Bloomberg. The mayor all but accused the chairman, Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., of collusion with City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, even noting a distant family connection (a Miller great-grandmother was a sister of a Schwarz grandmother).

What goes on here?

Dare we suggest a stumble by Mr. Schwarz, a move by City Hall to exploit it, and some selective memories. Mr. Schwarz, who took over last April, rushed out a news release about the board's recommendations last week without telling the board after news about the bill leaked in The New York Post. A mistake, he now concedes -- one that disconcerted board members accustomed to the consensus-building ministrations of Mr. Schwarz's predecessor, the Rev. Joseph A. O'Hare.

But did Mr. Schwarz, a seasoned lawyer and respected public servant, turn disreputable overnight? Or did Mr. Bloomberg and his political advisers see an opportunity to discredit a proposal they do not like because it could be awkward for the mayor?

The measure would give candidates like Mr. Miller more city money than they would get under the current formula, assuming that Mr. Bloomberg -- who spent nearly $75 million of his own money on his 2001 campaign -- pays his own way again.

And under the plan, intended to level the playing field a bit, each candidate in a high-spending race could get a maximum of $8.6 million in public funds, more than double today's $3.8 million.. The maximum could apply in both the primary and general election.

That's real money to most people, and the taxpayer could blame Mr. Bloomberg for that expenditure.

The proposal could also pressure Mr. Bloomberg to spend no more than other participating candidates are allowed ($5.7 million for the primary and again in the general election) under a new ''limited participant'' category for self-financing candidates like him. The mayor has left little doubt that he wants to be able to decide how much of his own fortune to spend on a campaign.

His communications director, William T. Cunningham, says that Mr. Bloomberg considers the proposal unnecessary, costly and possibly unconstitutional because it would require even nonparticipants to conform to city disclosure laws (rather than more flexible state rules). ''That's what happens when you rush something through in the dead of night in secret,'' Mr. Cunningham said. Mr. Bloomberg echoed Mr. Cunningham's complaint.

BUT the mayor's corporation counsel, Michael A. Cardozo, had been briefed and consulted. ''Fritz sent us a draft of a proposal in October,'' Mr. Cardozo said on Friday, ''There was a discussion over summer. We had one and possibly two meetings about the proposal. We never had a sit-down with the board and the Council.'' He was unhappy about that, he said, and annoyed that the bill reflects the Council's priorities and rejects most of the mayor's. ''I find this disappointing,'' Mr. Cardozo said. But the damning charge of secrecy was a hard one for him to second.

The bill was no more of a shock, or should not have been, to the board members who have objected to the process. They were consulted at a July 1 meeting, advised about the bill's progress in memos and e-mail messages -- and asked for their reactions -- at least six times afterward, said the board's executive director, Nicole A. Gordon. They never raised objections.

The three board members who complained about a lack of consultation -- Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Dale C. Christensen Jr. and Alfred C. Cerullo 3rd -- acknowledge the communications, but said they expected to discuss the proposal and, in some cases, their reservations, at a board meeting before the bill went public.

''It's fair to say board members knew about it,'' Mr. Christensen, who supports the recommendations, said yesterday. ''Everyone knew it was out there and got several communications. But it's not fair to say everything was vetted with the board.''

The Council will hold a hearing on the bill on Thursday and additional hearings in January. Perhaps by then, the substance of how best to respond to the wild card of a billionaire candidate will catch up with the politics of how to take advantage of a gaffe.